From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 12:35:17 BST
> [Arlo]
> I'm not arguing for a parlimentary model, or any model in particular at
> all. Is that the only option available by increasing choice?
What other option would you suggest?
>Besides, oh
> you of the "free market", I though more choice was a good thing? Now you
> seem to favor very restricted choice in the selection of represented
> statespeople. Are you suggesting that giving people more choice would be a
> bad thing?
From what I've seen in countries where a multitude of choices are offered
in a political context, yes, giving more choice would not be a good thing.
The situation In Germany today after a inconclusive election is a current
example.
> [Arlo]
> This isn't really ZMM at all. My take is then that you find that book not
> very meaningful, and prefer the psychedelic revelations of Lila instead?
Between the two books, Lila is much more meaningful to me. As for your
charge that Lila is based on psychedelic revelations, you should back that
up with evidence.
> But, if this is the change you seek, what does this change accomplish?
> Would it change people? Why don't you think all those religious people in
> this country see this? Are they stupid peons? Do you have a greater
> intellect than they? Have they been brainwashed?
>
> Or, is what your saying, that the actual "morality" would stay the same,
> only the Authority behind it would change?
Most people haven't read Lila. Most people don't question the source of
their moral standards. Doesn't mean they are stupid. They have other
interests. I happen to interested in morality. That's why the subtitle "An
Inquiry into Morals" captured my attention..
> [Platt]
> SOM can't tell right from wrong. That's Pirsig's message. We need him to
> provide a rational basis to morality. He is not against the free market of
> production and consumption. He is against taking what is produced and what
> is consumed for granted.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'm sure you don't mean we need him to provide a rational basis. Do we?
Definitely. A morality based on religious tradition has already been torn
to shreds. Now morality amounts to "anything goes" because it's "all
relative, you see." You've said your morality is based on reason, but have
never explained how.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 13:11:41 BST